Jessie Israel is running for Seattle City Council Position 6, and Friends of Seattle strongly endorses her.

• official campaign website
• Twitter
• Facebook
• campaign-finance disclosure reports with the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission

Table of Contents

• Discussion forum on the candidates for Seattle City Council Pos. 6
• Analysis by Friends of Seattle
• Jessie Israel's Interview Video
• Jessie Israel's Questionnaire Responses

Analysis

Friends of Seattle strongly endorses Jessie Israel. Other than the incumbents, she was the most knowledgeable and well-prepared candidate we interviewed. She’s a refreshing, experienced, and driven candidate who has shown strong leadership for more than 15 years in local community development, environmental, and social equity issues. Her innovative, revenue-generating ideas in times of budget crisis and her ability to form partnerships and get things accomplished are well-established. Ms. Israel is a dynamic candidate of change whom we are excited to endorse.

FoS was especially impressed with her sensible approach to transportation. She wrote in her questionnaire: “Even a small shift in funding to alternative modes could allow the city to maintain its responsibility of providing effective car and truck infrastructure (supporting what is still the overwhelming majority of trips in the city) while making new biking and walking investments that respond to the increase demanded for these transportation choices.” Ms. Israel supports bus rapid transit and more in-city rail transit, and she has unique ideas for funding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans (something we were happy to see, given her opposition to the commuter tax or “head tax”). She is open the idea of using Local Improvement Districts to fund new sidewalks, she understands the need to lobby the federal government for funding as part of the federal highway re-authorization bill, and she supports congestion pricing. We were impressed by Ms. Israel’s ideas—all of them specific, concrete, and innovative—for securing funding toward transit oriented development, sidewalks and affordable, walkable communities. And we know she has the energy and enthusiasm to move the city’s transportation plans forward.

Ms. Israel’s innovative ideas—and political courage—were on display in other areas too. For instance, she took on the sacred parking cow and wrote in her questionnaire: “Where needed remove parking on major arterials to accommodate Bicycle Right of Way.” With regard to multifamily housing, she championed the idea of design competitions to guide our revisions to the zoning code. Ms. Israel also showed smarts and savvy when she spoke in detail about creating a public-private weatherization loan pool to fund building renovations to increase energy efficiency.

In addition to having good ideas, Ms. Israel has the skills and experience to excel on the Council. She has a strong history of pioneering public-private partnerships, as demonstrated by her innovative work to help keep King County Parks thriving during challenging budget times. Her collaborative, action-oriented approach to public projects has helped to keep 25,000 acres of open space publicly available.

Friends of Seattle did briefly hesitate due to Ms. Israel’s support of the tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. We wish she told us in her interview interview how much money is too much money to spend on the project, as the possibility of cost overruns or inadequate state funding makes this a real question that she would answer as a councilmember. Many candidates approach the issue passively, saying a decision has been made by others and it’s time to move on; in other words, they will be the sort of elected official who goes wherever the political tides take them. Ms. Israel, in contrast, defended her position against our tough questioning, and so she gave us insight into her reasoning abilities and her values. More than that, Ms. Israel demonstrated that she will be a decisive leader on the Council who is prepared to listen but ultimately decide an issue and press for action.

Ms. Israel’s strong vision for the city and history of working for equity made her an obvious endorsement choice for Friends of Seattle in this race. We look forward to seeing her energy and innovation serve the residents and city of Seattle.

Interview

Part 1 of 4:

Part 2 of 4:

Part 3 of 4:

Part 4 of 4:

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

• General Questions
  • Friends of Seattle's Mission
  • Candidate Qualifications
  • Representing Seattle
  • City Council Committees
• Issues
  • Waste Reduction
  • Alaskan Way Viaduct
  • Transit
  • Bicycle Infrastructure
  • Pedestrian Infrastructure
  • Land Use and Multifamily Housing
  • City Governance
• Creative Response

General Questions

Friends of Seattle's Mission

• How does your candidacy support Friends of Seattle's values, goals, and mission?

In the next 20 years, an estimated 1.7 million people will move to our region. Today, we must take bold action on issues that will impact the future that our children inherit. For the past decade I have brought my passion for building partnerships across economic and political divides to help build stronger communities. I will bring that experience to the City Council.

As your Councilmember, my first priorities will be building strong, compact, walkable communities so that the neighborhoods we love can continue to be affordable and livable for many generations of families to come. I will be a champion for making smart, efficient investments in transportation, energy, and infrastructure. Second, I will focus on developing strategic partnership to make sure we are strengthening our safety net for those most in need. In tough economic times, we have less funding for the support people need more than ever. That’s why we need to more effectively work with non-profit and social service organizations. Third, we need to support robust public safety and truancy prevention initiatives.

Over the past 12 years Seattle has defined itself – NOT by innovation, efficiency or the coalitions we build - by process for the sake of process. I promise to listen, something we could use more of in City Hall. I will focus on what CAN be done, not what can be stopped, stalled, studied again, or over-processed to death. I know how to leverage public funds. I know the power of new technology. I know the power of partnerships. I have built a career out of figuring out how government CAN succeed in a tough economy and how economic and environmental goals go hand in hand.

Qualifications

• Please describe any professional accomplishments that demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you are an incumbent) or would demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you have not yet held office).

A family friend once said, “Among leaders, there are deal breakers and there are deal makers.” Some look at a problematic situation, and only see the imperfect. Other leaders can look at problematic situations, break them down, and fix them. I have a proven track record of being the latter and getting to “yes”.

I am a tireless government entrepreneur and only person in this race who has actually transformed government to work harder for citizens. I bring a critical skill, experience and outlook to the Council at a time when we must retool how government serves us.

For the past decade I have brought my passion for building partnerships across economic and political divides to help build stronger communities. I am unique in that my experience with King County forging public-private partnerships has given me perspective on how government can and should operate. Over 5 years at King County, I have worked to convert Parks into an efficient, performance-driven organization – ensuring that 25,000 acres of open space remains open to the public even during hard fiscal times.

My reputation and accomplishments show that economic and environmental goals go hand in hand – not one or the other. Now is the time for us to put that energy and know-how to work on behalf of our City. There is no time to waste.

I am proud to be endorsed by:
Washington Conservation Voters | Cascade Bike Club | National Women’s Political Caucus | Alki Foundation | Rental Housing Association | West Seattle Democratic Women | Seattle-King County Association of Realtors | City Councilmember Jean Godden | Sen Jeanne Kohl-Welles | Rep Reuven Carlyle | Rep Scott White | Rep Marcie Maxwell | Rep Zach Hudgins | Port Commissioners Bill Bryant, John Creighton, Gael Tarleton | Hon Bobbe Bridge (ret) and many, many others!

These elected officials and hundreds of other business, environmental and community leaders alike are supporting my campaign because they believe I represent a new generation of pragmatic, proactive leadership. I hope Friends of Seattle will join them!

Representing Seattle

Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.

• As an elected official representing Seattle, how would you work with King County, regional governmental entities, the state legislature, and the governor to ensure their budgets and policies address Seattle's needs?

Seattle is Washington’s largest population center, biggest tax revenue generator and the progressive epicenter of Washington. Our city needs a voice to match this prominence that will be heeded in Olympia and heard across the West Coast.

Our City Council’s working relationship with other elected bodies (County, Port, Governor, and Legislature) is at an all time low. Better communication between governments will also allow for collaboration and crisis management. Supporting regional transportation agencies is a crucial element of building a sound transportation policy that works. These relationships are going to play a critical role in urging elected colleagues to support transit to increase services in Seattle as well as in the greater County, explore bus rapid transit options within the City and tolling options on the 520 bridge.

I have strong personal and working relationships with leadership at the County, Port, Governor’s Office, Legislature, Suburban Cities and Sound Transit which will be critical in Seattle City Council regaining a prominent and respected place at the negotiating table.

I will work with key stakeholders to articulate and lobby for a clearly defined vision that links directly to mutually agreed upon outcomes. For us to effectively lobby and be in charge of our own urban destiny, we must show a united front around a single solution. Seattle has continued to fall down on this front over the past decade. Building real coalitions (not just endless process and public meetings) takes time and needs to be a part of the fabric of how we do business at the City.

City Council Committees

• If you are elected, which issues would you like included in your portfolio as a committee chair?

City Light - I believe strongly that over the next four years, the most opportunities for environmental leadership will be in defining the direction for Seattle City Light and energy policy for our City.

Land Use and Neighborhoods - This is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to building strong, compact and transit oriented communities that maintain their character and livability.

Transportation – Strong leadership must be a mandate when it comes to transit and transportation operations and infrastructure.

Issues

Waste Reduction

Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.

• Do you support the green fee? Why or why not?

For reasons of expediency and supporting small businesses in a tough economy, I would prefer to start with an aggressive voluntary recycle/reuse grocery bag initiative that leverages private resources for a much needed public information campaign geared to change behavior. In taking the “carrot before stick” approach, other cities are finding voluntary programs to be a more streamlined approach - requiring stores that supply plastic bags to also offer recycling bins and reusable shopping bags. This has been successful at immediately and measurably changing the culture around plastic bags and immediately reducing consumption without adding another layer of government bureaucracy and process to support.

I have worked alongside King County’s waste reduction and recycling team for 6 years while King County has rolled out food waste programs, pesticide reduction programs, electronics recycling programs, and many other initiatives geared to change behavior. In all of the above, lasting change has been the result of education campaigns followed up by a ban or fee when needed.

While I heartily support diverting of plastic from landfills and reducing consumption, the recent mandated bag fee is an example of top –down government that does not take implementation into account. More bureaucracy is not what we need. A fee has the potential of being to the detriment of employers in a tough economy, landfills still overflowing with plastic bags, and public that is now financing another campaign.

I support a voluntary program. If a robust collaborative voluntary program (which includes metrics) cannot be implemented within a short time frame then I would move to support a fee or ban on plastics.

Alaskan Way Viaduct

Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.

• Do you support the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel? Why or why not?

For far too long we have put off investing in transportation and transit infrastructure. We must work as a region and fight for transit, roads and cost effective alternatives to promote movement of people and goods. I am a supporter of the State, County, City, Port combined alternative for the viaduct replacement. If the option did not include surface transit improvements, I would be significantly less enthusiastic. I believe that a deep-bore tunnel will allow for us to:

• Knit together the waterfront neighborhood with downtown and provide a legacy of waterfront public space • Ensure West Seattle/Ballard residents and local businesses are able to weather a construction disruption
• Allow for livable residential density in downtown without freight disturbances
• Maintain circulation and disperse traffic in and through downtown by bolstering east-west corridors (including connections to an improved Mercer)

The deep bore tunnel as the best long term solution for keeping people and goods moving in our City. My main concern at this point is that County funding for robust surface street transportation alternatives will not receive the funding required for net new bus service. In light of METRO’s current budget and a commitment to weight new transit improvements toward the suburban cities, holding the County accountable for this increased service will be a top priority when I’m elected.

• If you support the tunnel, what would you do to address the cost-overruns issue?

The longer we wait to solve the problem of a viaduct replacement alternative, the more expensive the solution will be. I will work to ensure the current legislation requiring Seattle property owners to pay for the entirety of any cost overruns be overturned. The responsibility for staying under budget must be shared - as should liability for going over budget.

• If you oppose the tunnel, what would you do to prevent its implementation?

N/A

Transit

Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.

• If elected, how do you intend to improve the in-city transit system?

I am a supporter of bus rapid-transit (BRT), transit oriented development (TOD) and congestion pricing that funds transit in part. BRT is a great option as we can get it on the ground and serving the public much faster than some of the other mass transit modes. It should be noted that the disadvantage of BRT is that without dedicated bus lanes, it will not be as effective and will be less suited to Transit Oriented Development.

One of our best options for transit investments will be by lobbying the federal government for direct allocation of federal funds to local governments rather than going to the State. A recent funding cycle found that NO money came to the City of Seattle.

Additionally, Federal highway authorization is up this year and must be renewed. With the opportunity reauthorization provides, I will lobby with the County, PSRC and other interested parties to get rid of percentage requirements weighting surface transportation over transit and other transportation alternatives better suited to urban areas.

HUD will also have funding available for communities that are “shovel ready” when it comes to transit oriented development. With the opening of Sound Transit, we are perfectly poised to make our case. Los Angeles and other West Coast cities will be looking to move in front of Seattle with regards to readiness and we must show a united and aggressive front on the national stage.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.

• Do you support the Bicycle Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

YES!

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

Where needed remove parking on major arterials to accommodate Bicycle Right of Way. Continued investment in City driven programs like Bike Share and other bike/pedestrian infrastructure to ensure that Seattle maximizes connections and transportation hubs within the King County Metro and Sound Transit Systems.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

As with transit, one of our best options for alternative transportation investments will be by lobbying the federal government for direct allocation of federal funds to local governments rather than going to the State. A recent funding cycle found that NO money came to the City of Seattle.

Additionally, Federal highway authorization is up this year and must be renewed. With the opportunity reauthorization provides, I will lobby with the County, PSRC and other interested parties to get rid of percentage requirements weighting surface transportation over transit and other transportation alternatives better suited to urban areas.

Pedestrian Infrastructure

The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.

• Do you support the Pedestrian Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

YES!

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

I support integrating “green street” priorities into a green fast track for permits. Portland has demonstrated great examples of raingarden lined streets that reduce toxic runoff while building walkable, livable communities. When pedestrian infrastructure, integrating street-lined raingardens can reduce toxic runoff into the Puget Sound while increasing our City’s tree canopy and green areas. These are examples of the types of complete streetscapes we should be promoting as the future of our City.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

Our transportation investment decisions should evaluate the costs and benefits of different modes for mobility. With gas prices increasing over the long term and more time wasted sitting in traffic, the benefits of investments in better bus service, bike lanes, and sidewalks are becoming clear. Even a small shift in funding to alternative modes could allow the city to maintain its responsibility of providing effective car and truck infrastructure (supporting what is still the overwhelming majority of trips in the city) while making new biking and walking investments that respond to the increase demanded for these transportation choices.

Where appropriate, Local Improvement Districts (LID) have been a great tool for large infrastructure investments throughout our City’s history and should continue to be a critical tool for financing public projects where there is a clearly defined community/private benefit.

Land Use and Multifamily Housing

Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.

• Would you support legislation to allow backyard cottages to be built in all single-family zones? [Yes/No only please]

Achieving green, mixed-use, and affordable compact neighborhoods demands what I like to call a silver buckshot approach. There’s no single solution that will get us all the way there, but rather a set of solutions we must pursue that will cumulatively make a big difference.

• Encouraging urban infill projects via tax and height incentives
• Alter zoning to encourage multi-family dwellings
• Target improvements for transit, green space, walkability and other community oriented infrastructure to areas accepting growth
• Preserve rental housing by discouraging or mitigating condo conversions
• Encourage use of the multifamily tax exemption
• Decrease or eliminate parking requirements
• Allow ADUs and DADUs throughout the city

 

• Would you ever support a contract rezone or a broader rezone allowing for more housing to be built on a site? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the basic concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding on specific locations where more housing should be built?

I support up-zoning in specific locations near transit hubs, in Urban Centers and in Urban Villages where it is consistent with a community neighborhood plan. Neighborhood plan updates are going to be critical in defining methods of incorporating necessary sustainability, walkability, transit, and other urban growth strategies. Any up-zoning should be done in partnership with neighborhoods and should incorporate the best in design and planning techniques to offer a range of choices for how to accommodate extra growth in a way that best comports with neighborhood vision and character.

As we encourage growth in areas around transit stations we must be acutely aware of the potential consequences and provide financial tools for fixed income homeowners to ensure they can choose to remain in their homes as their assessed property values increase. I would also ensure we provide tools so that local small businesses – which lend character and vibrancy to neighborhoods – are not priced out.

• If you support the concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding where more housing should be built?

See above.

Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.

• Do you support the proposed revisions to the multifamily housing zoning code? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the revisions, do you have ideas for improving the proposed revisions?

In Urban Centers and transit corridors doing density right means taking advantage of tools that increase the number of units per acre while still maintaining community character. Portland’s “Courtyard Housing Competition” (www.courtyardhousing.org) is a tremendous example of an innovative approach to incentivizing residential density that fits with the character of a neighborhood. In pre-permitting winning designs, developers can produce cost effective housing that includes high quality design elements that fit with our unique neighborhoods.

As we are revising our multifamily housing zoning code, we must also be vigilant about streamlining the permitting process rather than making it more complex, so that the cost of building housing does not significantly increase – costs that are passed on to the consumer.

City Governance

• Do you support the "Vote Clean Seattle" plan, which is supported in principle by the City Council, to create a system for publicly funded campaigns in Seattle? [Yes/No only please]

No, publicly funded campaigns would not be necessary if we had districted elections. I currently support districts as a way of ensuring we have less costly and more transparent elections. In addition there is the added benefit of more direct representation for neighborhoods and better accountability towards outcomes. Districts would ensure that more qualified grassroots candidates could get elected without being driven by money. Conversely, in several parts of the country where publicly funded campaigns have been implemented, we have found that more extreme, less qualified candidates have been elected. This concerns me.

While publicly funded campaigns would certainly make MY life easier as a candidate challenging an entrenched incumbent, I do not believe that reasoning is in the best interest of safeguarding the public dollar - particularly in a time of budget crisis.

Creative Response

• If you have additional thoughts on how to improve Seattle's city government or to make Seattle a more livable and sustainable city, please note them here.

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy:

Establishing a public/private weatherization loan pool should also be a priority of the funding that will be coming to the region as a part of the stimulus package for energy efficiency. A number of municipalities across the country are getting creative and experimenting with incremental, neighborhood- or districtbased lending programs that help homeowners pay the up-front capital costs of energy efficiency projects. We should be following their lead. If we are strategic, we could attract additional public/private financing that would leverage the benefit of public dollars. In addition, by promoting deep energy efficiencies in the built environment – in both public and private development and in implementing Advanced Metering Technologies at Seattle City Light, we will stabilize our energy rates over the long term as our city grows.

As 60% of our local emissions come from transportation, transit improvements and electrification of vehicles will be a critical step in moving the needle with regards to carbon emissions. We must be proactive to ensure Seattle is taking full advantage of the emerging plug-in hybrid market and our position as a green, hybrid-owning city.

Youth Violence:

Ten years ago under Cheryl Chow and Martha Choe there was a gang violence initiative which brought gang rates from highest the City had ever seem to lowest in a matter of months. The reason that initiative was successful was because it partnered with parents, teachers, and community organizations. I support the new initiative, but we need to listen to people who know how to work effectively with kids, especially educators because the number one thing we can do is make sure students graduate from high school. It is also essential that we partner with other organizations to ensure we are being strategic in how we spend available funds. As an example, I recently worked with the Technology Access Foundation (TAF) to leverage $2M in public grant dollars towards building a $15M state-of-the-art community center for teaching underserved children in South Seattle the math and technology skills that are critical to their success. TAF will operate this center for the next 30 years without support from the crippled County General Fund.

Education & Truancy Prevention:

In Seattle 33% of the high schools, generate 50% of the dropouts in the district. 51% of the dropouts come from four schools: Ingraham (12%), Chief Sealth (17%), Franklin (11%) and Cleveland (11%). 10 elementary schools and 5 middle schools feed up to these worst performing schools for dropouts. I would actively work to ensure the City is targeting incentives and funding to support these 20 schools which are most at risk. Similar to the successful Harlem Children’s Zone strategy, I will be a strong proponent of a collaborative, strategic and highly targeted approach to blanket the worst performing schools with support from all angles. While the City cannot be a sole source of funding for this type of collaboration, the City must play a leadership role in its success.